B-144925, MAR. 27, 1961

B-144925, MAR. 27, 1961

TO S AND M LAMP COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 27, 1961, PROTESTING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY IN AWARDING A CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION NO. 1-3245B1.

IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION, WHICH WAS ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 21, 1960, BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY, MATERIAL CONTRACTS BRANCH, PRODUCTION AND CONTROL SECTION, YOU SUBMITTED A BID DATED DECEMBER 6, 1960, OFFERING TO FURNISH ONE LAMPHOLDER, FOR PAR-56 LAMP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION FAA-982C, AS MODIFIED, AND CAA DRAWINGS NOS. D-4761-1, 2 AND 3, AS REVISED, AT THE PRICES SET FORTH IN YOUR BID. YOUR BID WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 7, 1960, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT YOU WERE BIDDING ON A MODIFICATION OF YOUR STANDARD PAR-56 LAMPHOLDER IDENTIFIED AS NO. 556 IN A CATALOG ENCLOSED BY YOU. ALSO, ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER AND BID WERE SEVERAL DRAWINGS SHOWING DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE LAMPHOLDER AND EXPLAINING CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS OR ADDITIONS THERETO WHICH YOU PROPOSED TO MAKE. UPON ANALYZING ALL THE BIDS RECEIVED, THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT YOUR LOW BID WAS TECHNICALLY NONRESPONSIVE AND, THEREFORE, MADE AN AWARD TO THE SECOND LOW BIDDER, THE MULTI-ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING, INC., ON DECEMBER 21, 1960. THIS ACTION RESULTED IN YOUR PROTEST.

IT APPEARS FROM YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 27, 1961, THAT YOUR PROTEST IS BASED ON THE CONTENTION THAT IT WAS YOUR INTENTION TO BID ON THE LAMPHOLDERS IN EXACT ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. YOU STATE THAT YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 7, 1960, WHICH ACCOMPANIED YOUR BID, WAS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT YOU DID NOT INTERLINEATE OR PLACE ANY QUALIFICATIONS UPON THE BID FORM ITSELF WHICH IS THE NORMAL PRACTICE WHEN YOU INTEND A MODIFICATION OF THE INVITATION REQUIREMENTS.

GENERALLY, INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WHICH MAY BE CONTAINED IN A LETTER ACCOMPANYING A BID, SUCH AS WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1960, IS JUST AS MUCH FOR CONSIDERATION, TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER FACTORS, IN DETERMINING WHETHER A BID IS OR IS NOT RESPONSIVE, AS IF THE INFORMATION IS SET FORTH ON THE BID FORM ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE RECORD BEFORE US IN THIS CASE DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE DETERMINATION MADE THAT YOUR BID WAS NOT RESPONSIVE WAS BASED SOLELY ON YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1960. THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY REPORTS THAT IN EVALUATING YOUR BID THERE WERE COMPARED THE CATALOG AND VARIOUS DRAWINGS, WHICH WERE SUBMITTED WITH YOUR BID TO DESCRIBE THE LAMPHOLDERS AND COMPONENTS THAT YOU INTENDED TO FURNISH, WITH THE APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS SET FORTH IN THE INVITATION AND THAT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND, SOME OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE LAMP CLIP, AS ILLUSTRATED IN YOUR DRAWING A8443 DOES NOT CONFORM TO FABRICATION DETAILS AS SHOWN ON GOVERNMENT DRAWING D-4761-3, ITEM NO. 7, AND AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 3.3.22 OF GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATION 982C.

2. NEITHER YOUR DRAWINGS NOR THE CATALOG PROVIDED A TERMINAL BLOCK AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT DRAWING D4761-1, ITEM NO. 9, AND PARAGRAPH 3.3.3.3 OF GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATION 982C.

3. NO LAMP INDEXING RING WAS PROVIDED BY YOU AS CALLED FOR BY PARAGRAPH 3.3.2.1 OF GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATION 982C AND IS SHOWN ON GOVERNMENT DRAWING D-4761-2.

4. GOVERNMENT DRAWING D-4761-3 SHOWED IN EXACT DETAIL THE COLOR FILTER HOLDERS REQUIRED WHEREAS NOTHING WAS SHOWN IN EITHER YOUR CATALOG OR DRAWINGS TO INDICATE THAT YOU INTENDED TO FURNISH THE FILTER HOLDERS. THESE FILTER HOLDERS MUST BE OF THE EXACT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ACCOMODATE STANDARD SIZE COLOR FILTERS WHICH ARE PURCHASED UNDER A SEPARATE INVITATION.

THUS, THE RECORD BEFORE US SHOWS THAT NOT ONLY WAS YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1960, CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING YOUR BID, BUT ALSO THERE WERE CONSIDERED THE DETAILS OF THE LAMPHOLDERS PROPOSED TO BE FURNISHED BY YOU AS SET FORTH IN YOUR DRAWINGS AND THE CATALOG. IN THE EVALUATION THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY DETERMINED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCREPANCIES YOUR BID WAS TECHNICALLY NONRESPONSIVE IN THAT IT DID NOT MEET THE STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE RECORD APPEARS TO COMPLETELY SUPPORT THIS DETERMINATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, AND SINCE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT PROPOSED TO BE FURNISHED MEETS THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IS FOR DETERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINIONS OF THE TECHNICIANS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND SINCE THERE IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ANY ABUSE OF SUCH AUTHORITY IN THE EVALUATION, THE BID PROPERLY WAS HELD TO BE NONRESPONSIVE.

ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY IN THE MATTER IS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGAL OBJECTION.